Jump To ECM Entry Online Commentary Introduction
GC suggests multiple emergence of c from a, while the attestation of a is perfectly coherent and includes a sufficiently broad range of A-related witnesses. The attestation of a at words 8 and 12 is basically the same, including the entire Syriac tradition and the majority of Sahidic manuscripts.
TP: The Byzantine text (a) does not repeat ὁ θεός before ᾽Ισαάκ and ᾽Ιακώβ. As the subject is repeated, not only in the quoted LXX passages Ex 3:6 and 15, but also in the Byzantine text of Acts 7:32, the fuller form here is probably a secondary adaptation.
Variant b repeats θεός twice without the article, just as in Ex 3:6 and 15. It remains unclear, however, whether the source is a or c.
 049 and 1501 are the only witnesses for c at 8 and a at 12.
 Pervo (102) thinks that the longer form “cannot be attributed to assimilation to the LXX of Exod 3:6 or to the Gospels (Luke 20:37||Mark 12:26)”. Although it is true that Acts 3:13/8 and 12 were probably not consciously aligned with one of these passages, a reminiscence of the longer, more weighty expression can, however, explain its intrusion here very well. Pervo qualifies his statement by pointing to Acts 7:32, where the longer form is the MT. A strong argument for the short form here is that it is in fact supported by the majority against the fuller parallel.